Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:16:00 -0800 (PST) From: Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@posi.net> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Bob Van Valzah <Bob@Talarian.Com>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, Jorge Aldana <jorge@salk.edu>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, <smp@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Performance vs. Stable Message-ID: <20020227121320.X8086-100000@gateway.posi.net> In-Reply-To: <20020227220832.V48463-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> > Processor, Processes - factor slower than the best
> > --------------------------------------------------
>
> I think you are misinterpreting them. The non-starrd results are
> absolute times. E.g., they say that the "null" syscall takes 6.1 usec
> in 4.5-S and 6.1 usec in -current. This is about right. The "null"
> syscall is actually a write of 1 byte to /dev/null. File i/o has been
> been extensively pessimized in -current using locking. This only
> matters much for small i/o's, which is exactly what the benchmark
> tests. The pessimization is normally reduced a little for device files
> by using devfs.
>
I know I am going out on a limb to doubt you, but are you sure? The chart
header (as quoted above) sure seems to imply that the starred times are
absolute and all of the others are relative comparisons. As such, I was quite
impressed by how well -current appears to be performing compared to -stable
given how little optimization has been done so far.
Kelly
kbyanc@{posi.net,FreeBSD.org}
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020227121320.X8086-100000>